Abortion in the United States has claimed the lives of over 54 million babies since its legalization in 1973 – this we know. It has stolen grandchildren; future friends; future spouses; and future doctors, humanitarians, and congresswomen. It’s an American tragedy, and we are witnessing the beginning stages of its long-awaited demise. Unfortunately, in addition to stealing the lives of innocent children, abortion has caused a great deal of damage to American culture.

1. Children Became a Curse

If there is anything that population control committees and pro-aborts have succeeded at, it is convincing most of America that children are expensive, messy, freedom-stealing dream-squashers. The pro-abortion movement has helped to create a societal shift in our view of children. It took the joy of parenting and turned it into a tedious burden. Pro-aborts and population-control cohorts convinced women that in order to have a life of any value, they must have a career. As a result, children became an afterthought to many women. For example, often, if a woman in college finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, she is convinced she has no choice but to have an abortion because she’s been told that having a baby means she is guaranteed to be unsuccessful in college or stalled in her career. In addition, it seems that more children equals less success, less money, less possessions, and less free time, making children the apparent and ironic ultimate killers of fun.

2. Increased Child Abuse

Despite claims from early and current supporters of abortion that abortion availability leads to less child abuse because unwanted children are not born, the opposite has happened. Abortion has led to the devaluation of human life, especially of children, and therefore children are seen as expendable, undeserving creatures. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, sexual abuse of children rose 83% between 1986 and 1993. In addition, physical neglect of children rose 102%, and physical abuse of children rose 42%. Those numbers are staggering and, as reported by Life.org.nz, Dr. Philip G. Ney of the Department of Psychiatry at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Canada states that abortion is clearly a contributing factor to the rise in abuse because it creates guilt, frustration, and hostility as well as diminishes the significance of the once-unthinkable act of harming the defenseless.

3. Increased Crime Rate

Pro-abortionists have long claimed that access to abortion would lead to a decrease in crime because fewer children would be born to single mothers. But according to a 2007 study by John R. Lott, Jr. of the University of Maryland and John E. Whitley of the Institute for Defense and Analyses, there has actually been an increase in out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. since abortion became legal. In addition, there has been a decrease in the number of children given up for adoption and, therefore, an increase in the number of children being parented by single mothers. According to the study, this has lead to a 7% increase in murder rates. As reported by LifeNews.com, 5% of white children were born out of wedlock from 1965 to 1969, compared to 16% in the 1980s. Black children born out of wedlock increased from 35% to 62% over the same time period. And, unfortunately, due to the struggles of single parenthood, studies show that children of unwed mothers are more likely to become criminals.

4. Increased Discrimination

People with disabilities have been fighting for their rights for decades. They have fought for better access to public buildings, the end of discrimination in the workplace, access to an equal education, and the world’s warped perception that life with a disability is not worth living. Abortion has set the disability civil rights movement back. Even some of those who affiliate themselves with the right to life believe that abortion should be legal when the unborn child is diagnosed with a disability or genetic condition. In fact, 90% of unborn children with Down syndrome are aborted. Children are also being aborted because they have cystic fibrosis, or a cleft palate. It’s discrimination in a society that works to create more accepting, diverse communities. So why are so many of us okay with deciding that a child with a disability would be better off dead?

5. Less Respect for Women

Abortion wasn’t alone on this one; birth control played a huge part as well. Women have become much more sexually aggressive, and it’s touted as a good thing. However, birth control and abortion have helped to create a culture in which women are treated as sex objects. Predators are more likely to get away with sexually abusing their young victims because they can bring them to any abortion clinic with no questions asked. Abortion has opened the door for irresponsible, abusive men to be able to mistreat women more freely.

6. Destruction of the Family

With the lack of respect for women brought on by birth control and abortion comes the destruction of the family. If an unwed couple find themselves pregnant, the man, rather than taking responsibility and marrying his girlfriend, feels that he can just pay for an abortion and be done with “it,” leaving the girlfriend to feel the loss, pain, and guilt. If the woman decides to have and keep the baby, she is now left alone to raise a child and the man is free to live his life as he pleases. In addition, married couples who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant often disagree on how to handle the situation, but the men have no say. If the wife has an abortion, and the husband doesn’t want her to, or vice-versa, the marriage can be destroyed.

7. Opened the Door to Infanticide

In recent news, we have witnessed how abortion has lead to the acceptance of infanticide. Though infanticide in the U.S. is nothing new, the Journal of Medical Ethics recently published an article justifying “after-birth abortion.” The article states that newborn babies and unborn babies are both morally irrelevant and only potential persons; therefore, parents should be allowed to euthanize a newborn baby if they decide they don’t want him. Authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that after-birth abortion, or infanticide, should be legal for all of the same situations in which abortion is legal, which is for any reason at any time.

Abortion has been a dark cloud over the U.S. for 39 years. In that time we have become a culture of death, a people who collectively takes pleasure in witnessing the pain of other humans on reality television, who obsesses over celebrities with drug problems, and who chooses to selfishly focus on the material objects of our world. We don’t value each other as much, we don’t value our relationships as deeply, and we have become completely desensitized and unsympathetic. Thanks to abortion and the devaluing of human life, we are able to walk past a person dying in the street without a second thought, which is the same as killing the person ourselves.

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”

If you’re a Democrat, I hope you are spending considerable time preparing your defense for the soon-coming day when you will stand before a just and holy God who will demand that you account for why you voted for the murder of fifty-four million of his precious children.

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

The road to hell is paved with “intellectuals” and “experts.” That’s the record of history.

The next time you see a beatific mother lovingly holding her baby, kindly suggest to her that she ought to instead pursue the liberal path and slam it on the ground and bash its brains out:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts sayParents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, said: “If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen?

“What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new.”

Referring to the term “after-birth abortion”, Dr Stammers added: “This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

Margaret Sanger – the heroine of the left – famously or infamously said:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”

“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I never cease to be stunned that black people in America overwhelmingly support the party that has actively sought their deaths after literally fighting a war to keep them in slavery.

And, mind you, if Democrats can do that to one group of people and then condition them to like it, there’s really no logical reason why they shouldn’t do similar things to other groups.

That’s right: Obama has already taken the position that it’s perfectly okay to kill a baby who has survived an attempt at abortion and is outside his or her mother’s body. And the next logical step from that is straightforward infanticide, as a Canadian judge recently ruled.

The Democrat Party is the party of the murder of 54 million innocent human beings. It is the demonic party of hell. And in these last days before the Antichrist comes liberals are getting more and more demonic with every passing day.

But during a later appearance before about 800 people in Nashua, Obama made a comment likely to further the spats he was warned about.

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

I’ve got an idea: how about if we impeach this turd by applying his very own standard against this village air-raiding civilian killer? Why don’t we hold this rat bastard accountable for his own lying rhetoric?

Women supporters of a left wing political party hold placards carrying pictures of Afghans killed or wounded in recent air strikes during a protest in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, March 6, 2011. Hundreds of people from a left-wing political party marched through the streets of central Kabul to protest against U.S. military operations and demanded the withdrawal of foreign troops.

Supporters of left wing political party burn an effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama during a protest in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, March 6, 2011. Hundreds of people from a left-wing political party marched through the streets of central Kabul to protest against U.S. military operations and demanded the withdrawal of foreign troops. (AP Photo/ Dar Yasin)

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghanistan’s president on Sunday rejected a U.S. apology for the mistaken killing of nine Afghan boys in a NATO air attack and said civilian casualties are no longer acceptable.

According to a statement from his office, Hamid Karzai told Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, that expressing regret was not sufficient in last week’s killing of the boys, ages 12 and under, by coalition helicopters.

NATO has also apologized for the mistaken killings. Civilian casualties from coalition operations are a major source of strain in the already difficult relationship between Karzai’s government and the United States, and they generate widespread outrage among the population.

“President Karzai said that only regret is not sufficient and also mentioned that civilian casualties during military operations by coalition forces is the main reason for tension in relations between Afghanistan and United States,” the statement said. “It is not acceptable for the Afghan people anymore. Regrets and condemnations of the incident cannot heal the wounds of the people.”

The killing of the nine boys took place on March 1 in the Pech valley area of Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan.

Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, who directs day-to-day operations of coalition forces across Afghanistan, later issued a video statement of apology.

In the video, Rodriguez said troops at a base in the valley were responding to a rocket attack and dispatched attack helicopters to the location they were told the rockets came from. He said the helicopters thought they were engaging insurgents, but it later turned out they were boys from a nearby village who were cutting firewood.

In addition to being a confirmed baby killing monster who is “causing enormous pressure over there” in Afghanistan, there’s also the fact that this murderer Obama has been guilty of suspending Habeus Corpus by his own acknowledgment.

“While we’re at it,” he said, “we’re going to close Guantanamo. And we’re going to restore habeas corpus. … We’re going to lead by example – by not just word but by deed. That’s our vision for the future.”

Habeas corpus is a tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.

President Obama has signed an executive order creating a formal system to indefinitely detain prisoners without trial at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In addition, the White House said it will resume new military commission trials at the base. The announcements mark the latest sign that President Obama has abandoned his campaign promise to close the military prison. Lawrence Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Lawrence Korb: “Basically it means that Guantánamo Bay is going to be open for as far as we can see, because if in fact you can transfer the prisoners, you do try them, then you’ll have to put them some place if you convict them.”

You show me where George Bush said, “I’m violating Habeus Corpus, and I’m going to keep doing it; because I despise the Constitution, and that’s just the way I roll.” Because that’s exactly what Obama is on the record doing. He said what he has personally been doing going on three years was a violation of the Constitution. This pile of slime doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution on his very own twisted standard.

By the mainline media’s “oh, isn’t he just wonderful?” gushing accounts of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, it was a grand slam home run. He was conciliatory, gracious, and non-partisan – and did I mention wonderful?

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

First of all, Obama’s statement that abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision not made casually” is simply not true for a LOT of women. For example, abortion is the top birth control option for women in Russia. Are they a different species there? Are women in Russia not women? Are they not human? Are they not in fact very much like us? Another study found numerous women in the UK who had had five or more abortions, with “30 teenage girls a week asking for repeat abortions.” I looked for numbers regarding the United States, but the numbers are not nearly as forthcoming given that NARAL and mainline media propaganda seem to dominate. Abortion is surely a difficult choice for some women, but it is most certainly not a difficult choice whatsoever for all. And I’m not going to pretend it is.

Some women decide to have abortions out of fear for the future. But many others decide to do so for their own convenience for the simple reason that they don’t want a child and aren’t willing to carry their baby to term so he or she can be adopted. It is not women who are victims of abortion, but the babies whom they abort. Don’t ever forget that.

Then Obama says, “let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions.” My question is why? Because it sounds good coming out of the mouths of liberals talking the language of pro-lifers? Why should a liberal care about reducing the numbers of abortions? Isn’t abortion a sacrosanct right? How many other sacred rights should be reduced? Would less free speech be a good thing? How about fewer voters? Maybe we can reduce the number of attorneys made available to those accused of crimes?

In the same vein, what of Obama’s description of abortion as “having both moral and spiritual dimensions”? Really? How does that make any sense whatsoever unless we are talking about a baby human being, rather than a blob of tissue? Does having one’s tonsils removed have “moral and spiritual dimensions”? Clearly it doesn’t. There is clearly something more to the implications of abortion. This use of language is nothing more than another example of Obama and those like him trying to use language in a deceptive manner to convey a false illusion of truth, of compassion, and of a genuine understanding the issues involved.

The fact of the matter is that pro-abortion folk speaking of wanting to reduce abortions or calling it a moral and spiritual decision is simply gobbledygook.

If pro-abortionists want to reduce the number of abortions, why on earth would they push so hard to make abortion more available? Does anyone think that if we made drugs more available, the number of drug abusers would go down? Should we offer crack cocaine in our schools, so that kids can be “pro-choice” on drugs and “reduce the number of addictions”? How can you not spot the asininity of this rhetoric?

But it was when Obama spoke about honoring one another while we disagree on abortion that was the most insulting to moral intelligence.

Let me illustrate why I say the above thusly:

Suppose you have two little girls, and I kidnap one and kill her (to put in in abortionist terms, I “terminate her life”). And it is my plan to soon do the same to the second daughter. And I meet with the girls’ parents and I say, “Let’s not let our differences in opinion result in our hating one another. I tell them, “The fact that I don’t believe your children are human beings worthy of life doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t ‘reduce those with differing views to caricature.'” I beseech them to maintain “their open-hearts, their open minds, and their fair-minded words” as I dehumanize and terminate their precious babies.

Does anybody believe the parents would politely nod their heads in agreement? After all, can’t we all just get along and disagree honorably about such things?

You know that isn’t what would happen. Those parents would do anything to stop me. And so would the police. So would any passing citizen who had any moral decency at all and was in any position to prevent my harming those children.

The fact of the matter is, Obama’s rhetoric presupposes that this debate isn’t about the lives of babies, but rather some academic discussion regarding the rights of women over which we can disagree. In other words, Obama’s call to “friendship, civility, hospitality, and love” as we politely agree to disagree presume that babies aren’t being killed and no one is getting hurt.

For all the intelligence Obama is supposed to possess, listening to him is much more like eating candy than it is dining on profundity. It’s junk food for the mind and the soul.

I don’t mind it one bit when pro-abortionists call me “anti-choice.” I’m fine with their intensely hard feelings directed at me. Because that’s the way it frankly should be: we are on opposite sides of the greatest life and death moral issue of all time (unless you can tell me something else that has ended more human lives than abortion). It’s not supposed to be civil with such incredibly high stakes.

Which is why I’m not going to allow Barack Obama or anyone else to tell me, “Don’t get so worked up over abortion. We’re all good people just trying to do the right thing.”

Sorry, Barry, but you are an advocate for baby killing. You and people like you have murdered well over forty million innocent human lives, and one day a just and holy God will damn you to hell for it. I’m not going to treat you with quit dignity and respect when you are systematically depriving millions of children of not only their dignity but their lives. In the meantime, abortion and other child-reduction strategies have resulted in this nation going from about 16 workers for every retiree to only three workers for every retiree. And within a matter of a relatively few years it will go down to only two workers for every single retiree. And as our system breaks down we’ll get to enjoy hell early, and right here on earth, due to our abortion mindset.

With this in mind, consider another comment Obama made in his Notre Dame address, from the perspective of helpless unborn babies who have been dehumanized so that they can be killed by people who elevate convenience over another human being’s life:

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

I have found Ed Morissey to be an incredible analyst of American political culture with an amazing access to the most relevant stories and information. Here, he is joined by journalists Guy Benson and Mary Katherine Ham in a presentation of many of the issues that Americans should know about and soberly consider. Barack Obama’s radical stand on abortion; his hypocritical positions and contradictory positions on taxes; his long list of radical associations; his demonstrated poor foreign policy judgment; his open disdain for the American heartland; his reliance upon dealing the race card for political benefit; and his lack of any meaningful legislative accomplishment, are all treated.

The article is fairly long, with quite a few videos, so I shall link to it. But please read!

When a candidate for President of a major political party is so depraved that he supports infanticide, you know that we are a nation in moral and spiritual crisis.

You thought late term partial birth abortion was barbaric? How about the murder of babies who have actually been born?

Columnist Linda Chavez wrote a piece about how Obama’s support for infanticide will cost him amongst Catholics (even nominal Catholics). It should cost him the support of every human being who is capable of any compassion for human life.

Legislation to protect babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion (i.e., outside the mother’s body) began to form after Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse in an Illinois hospital, testified that living babies had simply being allowed to die without any attempt to provide medical treatment. A federal law titled the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was signed into law by President Bush in 2002 after it passed by unanimous vote in the Senate.

NARAL Pro-Choice America issued a statement that it did not oppose passage of the law. Other abortion rights groups acknowledged that opposing it would be extreme.

But Barack Obama demonstrated just how radically committed he was to abortion. Even retroactive abortion. Even the killing by callous neglect of a little baby who had taken her first breaths of the very same air that you and I breathe. He voted against the Illinois state version of the law. When it went to the Health and Human Services Committee, which State Senator Obama chaired, he refused to ever allow it to come up for a vote. He shelved it from even getting a hearing, much the same way that slowly dying babies had been shelved in hospitals and abortion clinics. It would pass only after Obama left the state senate and his committee chairman’s gavel was passed to another senator.

Jill Stanek, the nurse who fought for the law in both Illinois and the nation’s capital, said of Obama:

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”

There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.

This is the very sort of slimeball, disingenuous, hypocritical tactic that I believe characterizes this man. Barack Obama, as a member of radical ACORN, registered voters and filed a lawsuit to prevent any attempt to prune voter rolls, and then cynically and hypocritically challenged every single voter signature in order to keep the popular incumbent off the ballot for the state senate.

Barack Obama is a man who is so callous that he repeatedly prevented a law that would have provided an innocent human baby, born in the midst of unimaginable cruelness, surviving outside of her mothers body, fighting for her life, a chance to live.

The Nazis coined a term, Lebensunwertes Leben, a life unworthy to be lived.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

She was forbidden from providing any lifesaving medical care. It tore at her conscience.

Barack Obama claims to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ. When Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me” (Luke 18:15), does Barack Obama believe that Jesus meant to perform retroactive abortions on them? Or did Jesus seek to love and bless these most innocent and precious members of the human race?

1 Timothy chapter four begins with these words: “Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from what we believe; they will follow lying spirits and teachings that come from demons. These teachers are hypocrites and liars. They pretend to be religious, but their consciences are dead.”

I can’t imagine anything more demonic than infanticide. And I can’t imagine any conscience being more dead than the one that supports infanticide.

There are tears in my eyes, because I can see that little baby slowly dying, his pitiful little gasps for air a silent testimony that the monstrous and immoral ideology of a life unworthy to be lived is still among us.